Wednesday 08 January 2014
Environment Department response to media enquiry from Guernsey Press.
Guernsey Press enquiry:
I had a media enquiry regarding road closures being under greater scrutiny from Environment.
It follows a email from an ex Guernsey Telecoms employee who said he had been in touch with the department over recent roadworks caused by telecoms companies.
He said he first raised concerns over the recent closure of the Rohais by JT, which he claims was totally unnecessary. He said Rohais is served by a 9 way duct from top to bottom and further. When he left Guernsey Telecoms in 1983, less than half of the ducts in the Rohais were occupied and cable diameters have been reducing since then, not increasing.
He believes that part of the issue is that Sure are the only company to have plans to show the cable and duct network and there is no cooperation between the companies.
He also believes the States should never have sold the underground infrastructure and should have rented it out instead - maintaining control.
On a positive note, he said he has received assurances from Environment that it would hold telecoms under greater scrutiny in the future to ensure that roads were not being unnecessarily closed - presumably by forcing greater cooperation.
He has also been told that the Friquet works are necessary because all the ducts are full to capacity.
Given the above, could Environment confirm whether it is holding telecoms companies under more scrutiny?
What action is it taking?
Does it have the power to force more cooperation and does it acknowledge issues in the past?
Would Environment dispute the claim that roads have been closed unnecessarily?
Environment Department Response:
Given the above, could Environment confirm whether it is holding telecoms companies under more scrutiny?
The Environment Department has recently reviewed its roadwork policies and introduced some stricter controls from 1st January 2014 but these apply to all applicants not just the telecoms companies.
What action is it taking?
For all applications, the applicant has to demonstrate that the roadworks are justified, that there is no safe, practical, alternative way of carrying out the works which would be less disruptive to the travelling public, that the type of traffic management is safe and appropriate for the works, that the period of works applied for is considered reasonable and the application complies with the Department's extensive list of roadwork policies (attached).
Does it have the power to force more cooperation and does it acknowledge issues in the past?
The Department has a policy in place (RWA8) that states that where reasonably practical, all services to a site should be installed during one roadwork period only. With regards to utilities sharing trenches for the installation of a new or replacement utility network or sharing ducting it cannot force sharing, but generally in the past there has been good co-operation between contractors. The Department chairs monthly roadwork co-ordination meetings to which representatives from the utilities and major roadwork attend and discuss opportunities for joint working.
Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that in respect of the telecoms companies who are in direct competition it is ultimately a business decision on whether they share equipment.
However, the Department has recently done is to introduce a policy (RWC23) stating "A road works application involving the installation or replacement of a utility network should not be approved for the same road unless more than two years has elapsed since the last works, unless there are extenuating circumstances". Therefore, this encourages the utilities to forward plan even more and work together where practical.
Would Environment dispute the claim that roads have been closed unnecessarily?
Yes, the Department considers that approvals for closures have only been granted if justified.
Contact Information:
Karl Guille, Traffic and Transport Services Manager
Environment Department
Tel: 243400
